To the Saints gathering at The Meeting Room,
Colwyn Avenue, Colwyn Bay, Denbighshire

Beloved Brethren,
Having enjoyed happy fellowship with you for over 20 years, and with brethren generally for nearly 50 years,

• it is with deep sorrow that I now write to say that as you are going on with unjudged evil I can no longer walk with you.

My reasons, among others, for taking this course are as follows:

1. The setting up of authoritative ministry', so-called, on a level with, or even above, the word of God.

2. The current teaching that believers who are not in fellowship with us are in the same position as 'wicked persons' withdrawn from in accordance with 1 Cor. 5. Meetings with JTJr at Horsham, July 1960, and elsewhere.

3. The current teaching,
   1. firstly, that eating with a person necessarily involves fellowship with him, and,

   2. secondly, that to express our Christian liberty we should have alcoholic liquors on our tables.

4. The introduction of 'novelties', such as a plate in lieu of the usual collection box, and a host of other items, which find no place in the word of God.

5. The evil character of the so-called assembly judgment at Hornchurch regarding our brother Mr. G. R. Cowell, and other assembly judgments of a like nature by means of which servants of the Lord have been summarily cast out of fellowship.

Before considering in detail the five items set out above, I would remark that it is undeniable that the Lord is raising the whole question of separation.

• On account of worldly influences, which have been too active, and for too long a time, the present crisis finds many of us incapable of a spiritual judgment.

• Even in matters of simple righteousness and conduct, some are guilty in such a way that even the world would condemn them.

• Cases of grossest evil, even among leaders, are consistently coming to light here and abroad, disclosing a poor underlying state.

The closing chapters of Ezra and Nehemiah, Scriptural records covering the period at the close of the previous dispensation and corresponding with our own time, are prophetic of closing phases and characteristics of church history.

• In the matter of separation, Ezra 9 records that "the hand of the princes and rulers has been chief in this unfaithfulness",

• while Nehemiah 13 shows that:

1. the lessons of past conflicts in relation to the testimony are quickly forgotten, verses 1-3,

2. the violent Ammonite, who "ripped up the women with child of Gilead that they might enlarge their border", Amos 1: 13, has found a place in the house of God, verses 4-9,

3. the house of God has been forsaken in favour of private interests, verses 10-14,

4. God's rest, the Sabbath, in our day His rest in Christ and the liberty of grace characteristic of the present dispensation, has been profaned by the introduction of law keeping or burden bearing, verses 15-22, and,

5. links of Philistine, Ammonite and Moabite character have produced a generation which spoke half in the language of Ashdod and half in the Jew's language. verses 23-29.

We all, every one of us, must acknowledge how great a part we have had in this slow but definite decline, and although God, who always acts consistently with what he is, has remained faithful "keeping covenant and loving kindness with" us, Daniel 9,

• yet to us belongs "confusion of face" because "we have sinned against" Him, verse 8.

• But the question is, how will things be put right?

• How will a truly separate people – single of eye, pure in heart, and seeking to walk in lowliness and free from ecclesiastical pretensions in a day of utter church ruin publicly, yet in the light of the assembly, cherishing Christ's thought as to it and being pleasing to the Lord – be secured out of the confusion?

The history of man, from the outset, has shown that the imposition of laws, rules and regulations, from without, produces nothing for God, but merely that in which flesh may boast –

• "As many as desire to have a fair appearance in the flesh, these compel you to be circumcised", Gal. 6: 12.

• This principle has never produced fruit for God and never will. "The law perfected nothing", Heb. 7: 19.

• What then is the divine remedy? It is, surely, "Make clean first the inside of the cup and of the dish, that their outside also may become clean", Matt. 23: 26.

• The apostle Paul also says, "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither that circumcision which is outward in flesh; but he is a Jew who is so inwardly; and circumcision, of the heart, in the spirit, not in letter; whose praise is not of man but of God", Romans 2: 28-29.

• In the Old Testament also, we find that "man looketh upon the outward appearance, but Jehovah looketh upon the heart", 1 Sam. 16: 7.

Purification, which is the same word as cleansing, begins within, from the heart, and is a question of righteousness as making way for holiness.

• This is always the Scriptural order – 2 Cor. 7: 1, Rom. 6: 17-22. This, however, we have publicly abandoned. To mention the principle is rank heresy!

• I have heard of brothers being rebuked publicly in large reading meetings for referring to the Scripture in Matthew – the Lord's own precious words – as though they were trying to bring in some nefarious new doctrine.

• At a neighbouring meeting a few weeks ago I myself was rebuked for insisting that the present is still a day of grace, that God works primarily to secure man through his heart and that grace reigns through righteousness.

• I was told that this was not a day for grace, that this had long gone by, and that the present time called only for the active use of the sword.

We are, surely, to depart from evil, or, if there is power, to deal with it, wherever it raises its head unjudged. This, however, is not the present question.

• What we are enquiring is, how will recovery to the principles of true separation which brought JND and others out to the Lord, principles from which we have so sorrowfully departed, be brought about?

• The answer is, unequivocally, by a living ministry of Christ, of such a positive character that the saints will be consumed with desire of heart to be like Him, to walk here as He walked, and to be led by the Spirit in the true liberty of sonship, which alone is true Christianity.

Dealing with this very matter, beloved JND said,

• When the sense of grace is diminished, we decline in practice. Our motives must be in God. Sometimes effort is made to press conduct, works and practice; because – it is said – full grace was preached before; now that there is decline in practice you must preach practice. That which is the rather to be pressed is grace – the first grace. It is grace, not legalism, that will restore the soul. Where the sense of grace is diminished, the conscience may be, at the same time, uncommonly active, and then it condemns the pressing of grace, and legalism is the result. When the conscience has been put in action through the claims of grace, that is not legalism; and there will be holy practice in detail.

  Collected Writings, 27: 291
  – Dead with Christ, Risen with Christ.

This then is the answer, in language far better than I can command.

Today, authoritative ministry, so-called, is endeavouring to bind upon the saints laws and rules, many of which are not in Scripture, and it has deeply impressed me that it is a time to call a halt and find out where we are going.

• In view of the many difficulties encountered in the attempted enforcement of this ministry, there is some talk of 'modification', and the like.

• Is the truth ever 'modified'? Is not modification the very condemnation of what is being pressed? The Spirit's voice is never outside the written word and His speaking is never 'modified'.

• Further, as to ourselves, we must ever remember that "we have not discretionary power outside the word. Such is the perfection of the word, that there is not a single case for which it has not spoken; but wisdom is needed to apply it", JND, C.W. 20: 346.

The same beloved servant, JND. has said:

• The whip and the scourge may be righteous, but there is no winning the heart of man by those. Nor is it righteousness which reigns among the saints of God, but grace, through righteousness, unto eternal life. Also how many sins that might have been washed away, John 13, have been retained. How many brethren alienated for all time, that might have been won back to God and to us, because we have hammered at the conscience merely, with the heart ungained – with the heart, I may say, almost unsought. We have not overcome evil because we have not overcome it with good. We have taken readily the judge's chair, and have got back judgment, but the Master's lowly work we have little done.

• But how little yet do we understand that mere righteous dealing – absolutely righteous as it may be – will not work the restoration of souls; that judgment, however temperate and however true, will not touch and soften and subdue hearts to receive instruction that, by the very facts of the case are shown not to be in their true place before God. Man is not all conscience; and conscience reached with the heart away will do what it did with the first sinner amongst men – drive him out among the trees of the garden to escape the unwelcome voice. [ no reference given ]

I now wish to consider in detail items 1 to 5 appearing at the commencement of this letter.

For the following, see Guests: My Stand 1: Authoritative Ministry.

1. The Setting up of "authoritative ministry" so-called

Ministry is not authority. It is a means of communicating truth. Further, neither saints nor servants are authority, and have no right whatever to bring out what is not within the word of God,

• regardless of claims to 'temple light' and such like, as though in these conditions the Spirit would give something outside the written word, or more perfect truth than that which He teaches directly through the word.

• Men, whether saints or servants, are never a rule nor an authority, and there is no such thing in the word as 'authoritative ministry' subsequent to the authoritative writing of the Scriptures through revelation by specially inspired servants of the Lord – i.e., the apostles.

  To this must be added Mark and Luke, who were not apostles, also the writer of the Hebrews, if not actually Paul, and also James. GAR

• The Lord may, and clearly does, support by His power and grace the ministry and teaching of those whom He has gifted and of whom He approves, but this is not authority.

JND points out –Letters 1: 105 – the letter following that dated July 16th, 1846 – that

• A rule must be an existing quantum of doctrine, but this no men are. That as an authority must be infallible, which none is but God. Infallible is not perfectly right. I may say what is absolutely right, but I am not infallible … God remained the alone infallible, who never could of Himself say anything wrong. This was not communicated to an apostle, since if he did not speak by inspiration he was as another man …

I commend to the brethren this important letter, and the next one in the same volume [ 1: 107 ].

• No impartial reader having (the) Unction from the Holy (One) can fail to discern that JND would not tolerate the notion of 'authoritative ministry'.

• He was far too well acquainted with the machinations of the clerical system to be deceived into allowing this.

Today the claim that certain ministry is 'authoritative' is made, and largely acknowledged, universally.

• The mere fact that such tremendous efforts, including the threat of excommunication, are being made to establish this, is its very condemnation.

• In the light of the word of God, I am quite unable to accept the claim.

• The word of God, which is "the revelation of God, the expression of what He is, and of all that surrounds Him, and of what His will is in all the circumstances that surround us" – Synopsis 5: 201, Heb. 4 – is the sole authority in doctrine and teaching,
  • while the Spirit of God is the sole Authority in the assembly.

• Merely Fde that ministry is authoritative and any doctrinal notion may be taken on, without the conscience necessarily being in direct relation with God in doing so. This is clericalism.

• Ministry which is of the Spirit presents God to the soul, and places it in His presence. It desires to do this, seeks to do it, hiding itself in order to succeed.

• It never comes in between the soul and God. It is never in itself an authority, and never poses as such.

Before leaving this subject, I would draw attention to the Synopsis on 2 Timothy, 5: 137, as follows:—

• Timothy himself was not an authority either. He was an instrument for the communication of the truth and was to enable others to do so likewise; a very different thing from being the rule of the truth. That which he had heard – and the other witnesses served as a guarantee against the introduction of anything false, or even his own opinions, if he had been inclined to entertain them – that he was to communicate.

• It is thus that, in the ordinary sense, ministry is continued; care is taken by competent persons for the communication, not of authority, but of the truth, to other faithful persons. [The portion omitted by FGH should be read.] This is a widely different thing from bestowing authority … And it was known revealed truth he was to communicate, that had the direct authority of revelation – what Paul's writings alone can furnish us now, or of course other inspired writings.

• In order that there may be no obscurities in this matter, it may be pointed out that a servant may have authority, but that this can never be other than moral authority.

In Letters, 1: 235-7, May 27th, 1854, JND says:—

• Regular authority, established by the apostle, and armed with his sanction, no longer exists … When the influence of true ministry is in exercise – and it is of great price – it is gentle as the relations of a nurse with her child, as Paul said; the more so that spiritual power, acting in personal devotedness, is but little manifested now as in the case indicated by the apostle. It also supposes a workman made "manifest to God", and consequently to the consciences of those in the midst of whom he acts. I have never seen when such a person acts, and his actions flow from much communion with God, that this influence, this moral authority, has not been recognised. Moreover, such a workman is not, in this case, carried beyond what he has received from God, so that his ministry finds its sanction in hearts without any pressure.

2. Believers not in fellowship with us are in the same position as wicked persons' withdrawn from in accordance with 1 Corinthians 5

This dreadful doctrine, which is a product of 'authoritative ministry', arises from the notion that we are the assembly, although this may be denied verbally.

FGH anticipates the pretentious claim in early 1970 – 'We are the church'.

Speaking of the decline manifest in his day, JND says, Letters, 3: 201-2, Nov. 26th, 1881:—

• Brethren are occupied with themselves to the exclusion of other Christians who are equally members of the body of Christ; they think of themselves more than the Lord. They do all they can to keep the gathering together, losing sight more or less of the great truths which have acted upon hearts individually, and which truths formed the gathering, not as a great work visible and recognised on earth, but as a testimony from God and for the glory of Christ in the midst of Christianity. It is of the last importance that we should continually remember that brethren are a testimony and nothing else; that is to say that it is the truth that has kept us for the glory of Christ, and not we ourselves. This is easily forgotten.

In Letters 1: 385-6, he says:—

• One might be provoked to abstain from having anything to do with persons in the sects, etc., but we have to remember that there are true saints of God in these associations, whose good we are to seek for the Lord's sake, and deliverance from all that is offensive to Him. If it be argued that, in this case, we ought to go with them, the answer is "Let them return unto thee; but return not thou to them".

There is no doubt that our danger is, and has been for a long time, despite the repeated warnings of beloved servants now with the Lord,

• not of seeking a place in the world, but of aspiring to be a model of the assembly, claiming to be a constituted body in evidence here,

• and supposing that we have the approval of the Lord in a way and measure distinct from the rest of the children of God.

• Today we are far away, in mind and fact, from the "two or three gathered together unto my name".

Well does JND say – C.W. 27: 323, new edition – Article entitled 'Fragmentary Remarks, 2 Tim. 2':—

• When there is an attempt at displaying the position and the unity, there will always be a mess and a failure; God will not take such a place with us … I only, therefore, so far seek the original standing of the church, as to believe that wherever two or three are gathered in His Name, Christ will be, and that the Spirit of God is necessarily the only source of power, and that which He does will be blessing through the Lordship of Christ … If more be attempted now, it will be only confusion.

The writer goes on to say – page 335:—

• If a minister has gifts in the Establishment, I own it, as through the Spirit, Christ begetting the members of, or nourishing, His body.

While on this vital subject, may I commend to the brethren the sobering article by beloved JT in New Series 12: 19, and entitled, 'Is the assembly available today?'

In the light of the foregoing, and of the fact that the Lord loves our fellow believers, and that I am to pray for all saints and hold them in my affections – I cannot, of course, go with what they are identified with – I reject unconditionally this strange new doctrine.

To my knowledge, two leading brothers have said recently, publicly, that believers not identified with us are linked with the 'table of demons'.

• JND speaks of this as "unbrokenness and ignorance of him who says it" and "absurdity, in plain defiance of Scripture" and "simply monstrous folly".

• To follow up the matter brethren should study JND's Letters 2: 11, 300, 409. These letters will put the important matter in proper perspective.

3. Eating With

The new doctrine that we should not eat with persons, including relatives and fellow-believers, who are not "in fellowship" with us, is one of the direct products of an "authoritative ministry", and is contrary to the word of God.

• Merely concede that "eating and drinking is a matter of fellowship",
  —— in 'The Throne of God', Manchester, July 1960, Meetings with C. Hammond, page 61 – and the new rules are unchallengeable.

• It is rather like measuring a building with a defective ruler – all measurements with that ruler will be erroneous.

• There is for the believer, only one authority as regards doctrine, and this is the written word of God.

• It is the alone rule which God has given and contains all that He has revealed.

• It is complete, and can, because it is the truth, be the means of communicating the truth to a soul.

• The Holy Spirit, by Whom it was indited, can use it as a means; but at all events it is the perfect rule, the alone authoritative communication of the mind and will of God, for the believer.

The word of God is very clear as to those with whom we may not eat. These are 'wicked persons' of the classes mentioned in 1 Cor. 5 and Titus 3: 10-11.

• As regards other believers, we have no common basis on which to walk together, which is quite a different thing.

• We are not the assembly, and should not claim to be such, authoritatively, in a day of ruin. To do so is to deny the ruin and to assume the candlestick position.

So many able brethren have shown this eating-with doctrine to be contrary to Scripture, that it is hardly necessary to go over the ground again here.

• Suffice it to say that "God's dispensation – economy – which is in faith", being the full light of Ephesian truth, is so exceedingly great and blessed, and should so engage our hearts, that it is most regrettable that the saints should be troubled by those who,

1. desire "to be law-teachers, not understanding either what they say or concerning what they so strenuously affirm", 1 Tim. 1: 7,

2. make the saints "sick about questions and disputes of words, out of which arise envy, strife, injurious words, evil suspicions, constant quarrellings", 1 Tim. 6: 4-5,

3. and engage the brethren with "foolish and senseless questionings . . . knowing that they beget contentions", 2 Tim. 2: 23.4.

The simple test afforded by the word of God is:—

• "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all things to God's glory. Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God. Even as I also please all in all things; not seeking my own profit, but that of the many, that they may be saved", 1 Cor. 10: 31-33.

There is no need to wrest this passage or to say that it is 'qualified' by 2 Timothy 2.

• It is clear and unequivocal to the believer who approaches it subject to the Spirit of God and in the conscious enjoyment of sonship and nearness to God.

• If these qualities are absent, no imposition of laws and rules will put them there.

• The believer indicated will have no difficulty whatever in distinguishing between eating and drinking, which, in the light of Scripture, is the expression of 'fellowship', and that which is not.

In this connection, JND in C.W. 7: 349, says:—

• Conclusions are never knowing the truth. I draw a conclusion: this last is only a consequence, and idea which follows from another. The truth is what exists in Christ, or the showing of everything, as it is, by Him. I say as to the truth – it is. I say as to a conclusion – it must be right. It may be so. But in the truth I have what is – in a conclusion, an idea justly deduced: an immense difference morally speaking. I am subject to the truth … I say this not to hinder enquiry, but to insist on testing by the Scriptures all conclusions I arrive at – man's conclusions, by a divine testimony.

Alcoholics

While total abstinence, as a doctrine, is contrary to the word of God – 1 Tim. 4: 1-5 –

• the new doctrine that every believer should have alcoholic liquors on his table to prove his Christian liberty, is totally false and just the reverse of what is taught in the word.

• A believer, in Christian liberty, may drink water only, if he prefers to do so.

• Further, the teaching in Rom. 14: 21-23 and 1 Cor. 8: 10-13 establishes, unequivocally, the principle that the "strong" brother is on no account whatever to impose his liberty on the "weak" one.

• If the strong brother is free before God in the matter, he may drink alcoholics – but not to excess, 1 Tim. 3: 5 – but, if by so doing he may stumble his weak brother, he is to abstain.

• The Scripture cannot be clearer.

On this matter JND says. Letters, 1: 520 – 1868,

• Another point is, that if in earnest, a man will avoid the occasion of temptation where he feels he cannot overcome. I agree that we are not called upon to abstain as a law, and I object to vows or pledges, but if a brother found it a means of avoiding sin, he would gladly act on the principle of total abstinence, that he might not enter into temptation; we are to cut off a right hand or pluck out a right eye if it is a stumbling-block to us. The Lord make him feel the evil, for knowledge without godliness is just the way of dishonouring God, and making those who hate true knowledge find a handle against it.

4. The introduction of 'novelties'
which find no place in the word of God

Examples of the 'novelties' – I know of more than a dozen – to which I now refer are:—

1. The use of a plate or open box on lieu of the box or basket in general use.

2. The brethren to sit in circles, brothers in front and sisters behind.

3. The emblems at the Supper to be handed to a sister first.

These things, and several like them, are in 'the ministry', and are being pressed in localities where there is a brother with the 'courage' to 'enforce' them. They find no place in the word of God.

• Scriptures may be wrested to support them, and the impression is often sought to be given that they are the fruit of profound Scriptural research and understanding of the word of God by very spiritual men.

On the contrary, to the simple and dependent student of Scripture, the word is plain, as JND says, Letters, 3: 134, Feb. 9th, 1881:—

• It is not that there are not deep things in the word of God, but if we search it with His grace and Spirit it is always plain for us on the top; then we have it from Him. The cream is on the surface, not that we do not search and study, but that when we get it from God it is plain and on the surface.

Warning the saints about bringing out things which are not in the Scripture, beloved. JTSr says, Vol. 171: 56; N.S. 63: 53:—

• We are to be accurate and have things in their fulness and completeness, as the Spirit teaches them. We are not to be bringing out things that are not in Scripture …

The introduction of these novelties is clear evidence of a weak underlying state, and the determined efforts made to get them taken on has led the saints to confound spirituality with a spurious form of ritualism.

• Religious man loves ritual, observances, formularies, and the like, and by these deceives himself as to his true spiritual state.

• The payment of tithe and cummin and rue is no answer to the neglect, or ignorance, of the weightier matters of the law, or the judgment and love of God.

• It is in the latter we have so grievously failed, but recourse to the former is no remedy for it. We merely deceive ourselves.

• I reject as unscriptural and unspiritual these modern 'novelties'.

Beloved CAC, in his book on Luke, page 149, says:—

• Paying attention to the outside while the inside is unclean, paying great attention to trifles – all this is an element of darkness. I have observed that when people are very punctiliousabout trifles, they generally fail grievously in big things.

Mr. Holding treats most other issues so justly that I refer reluctantly to his views of certain so-called "modern 'novelties' ". I have no desire to offset his cogent arguments on other matters by what follows. Perhaps ancient 'customs' might be more acceptable, for his objections seem to be based on antipathy to change rather than on explicit principles. He says that these modern novelties "find no place in the word of God". However, he does not indicate any Scriptural support for the ancient 'customs'. The "box or basket in general use" was presumably covered – but this was not so everywhere. It might be done as a precaution, lest the basket be tipped and the contents fall out – shades of Uzzah ! – but if only a 'custom' is that not also "a spurious form of ritualism"? Seating, especially at the Lord's Supper, is surely too important to be governed by the laws of the Medes and Persians. Before the circle – or a reasonable facsimile – was adopted, seating was usually in double facing rows, with other rows at right angles at either end. In our local meeting there were always far more rows nearest the door, occupied mostly by sisters, children – and some silent brothers who sat with their wives. Sisters never sat in the front row – surely that would be uncomely! Brothers generally sat in the front where they could easily serve at the table. But this rectangle looked more like a 'church' than a meeting of those gathered to His Name. The circle is more practical for passing the bread and cup, promotes togetherness instead of congregationalism, and is specially conducive to greater participation, in all the meetings, by younger men – who used to sit in the wings to make room for their elders on the front row. In these parts the cup was always started at the back row – for convenience – and, invariably, was handed first to a sister. Would it be better for a brother to sit in the back row of the rectangle so that he might receive the cup first? What about the much earlier adjustment as to using only one cup at the Lord's Supper – is that also a novelty? I do not – in any way – support the harshness with which some matters were pressed, especially in England where everything seemed to be carried to extremes. But neither can I understand citing the matters referred to above along with the most serious and substantial reasons for no longer being able to walk in fellowship with certain brethren – and then equating their practice with Pharisaical punctiliousness. GAR

4. The Hornchurch and other similar assembly judgments, so-called

I do not propose to say much on this matter here. However, accompanied by another brother I was present at the Hornchurch assembly meeting.

• As the meeting proceeded, it became perfectly obvious to us both that the case had been carefully arranged beforehand to ensure that a desire judgment would be reached,

• the local brethren being most clearly under the direction, not of heaven, but of brethren – leaders – elsewhere in the country.

I say no more as to this except to quote JND, Letters, 3: 203:—

• Some pretend to be an expression of the assembly of God when their acts prove that they have no sense of the Lord's presence in their midst. To admit their pretension, would evidently be to deny the presence and action of the Spirit of God, for such walk by human intelligence, and override conscience.

As to the alleged errors of doctrine in the book entitled 'Purification and Life', and the Cape Town Notes, not one of the charges can be supported when considered in the light of the best ministry available, particularly that of JND.

Purification and Life, G. R. Cowell, Exeter, August 1958 – reprinted by P. Haddad as Vol. 9 of the 'Memorials of the Ministry of G. R. Cowell'. Fundamental Truths of Christianity, G. R. Cowell, Cape Town, South Africa, Dec. 1958 – reprinted by P. Haddad.

• Details need not be gone into here, but will be placed at the disposal of any genuine enquirer on reference to me.

• On no account will I support the dreadful accusation which has been made, that Mr. Cowell's ministry was 'Satanic in origin and Bethesda in character'.

No man is infallible, and infirmity of language may in certain circumstances give rise to an appearance of error, which the most careful revision may fail to rectify.

• The charges were made publicly after Mr. Cowell had been withdrawn from and gave him no opportunity to reply.

I say no more on this, except that I do not accept the so-called assembly judgment or the charges on matters of doctrine made either before or after the meeting.

• Nor do I accept the so-called assembly judgments on certain other valuable servants of the Lord, arrived at in very similar circumstances.

Mr. Darby

I know that my constant reference to JND will be criticised, and that I shall be charged with putting the older ministry against the present voice of the Spirit.

• I leave the Lord to judge of this. He knows that there is nobody values current ministry more than I do, provided it is of the Lord and by the Spirit, and does not travesty the word of God.

But in this connection I would draw attention to the following remarks by JTSr :—

• Mr. Darby stands by himself; spiritual instinct is not evidenced in linking him, as this letter does, with Athanasius, Augustine and Luther. The plane on which Mr. Darby served, as having judged as contrary to the mind of God the whole clerical system beginning with the early so-called fathers and extending to the present time, was altogether above that of those who preceded him since the apostles went to be with the Lord. Those who keep the Lord's commandments as loving Him, regard JND in this way, valuing his ministry as marked by the energy and wisdom of the Spirit; being without an equal since apostolic time. Letters of JT, 1: 388

If brethren would only read more of JND's ministry, they would better understand what the Lord has given since. In Volume 20 [no page given] of his Collected Writings he warns the saints in the following words against what is happening today:—

• Another mark of the enemy's work. It is this: where there is the sudden reception of a whole system and the authority of the author of is set up at once over the mind. When truth is received into the soul by the Spirit, it is received and engrafted by God, so that, though a blessed door may be opened by any given truth, we are built up truth by truth, each being wrought into the soul so that there is truth in it, and the consciousness of God's teaching us as to it, though inspired teachers were of course an authority. In the case of stated the mind is at once shut up into the system, and real progress in divine truth is entirely arrested.

Authoritative ministry, so-called, makes way for clericalism, while the 'eating-with' doctrines denote the existence of sectarianism. I can go with neither.

For many years the conditions in Colwyn Bay have been of the happiest and this makes it doubly difficult to leave those with whom I have had such wonderful fellowship.

• I am, however, driven to the course I now take, not by local conditions, but by the fact that you remain linked with the evil which is persisted in, in very many meetings, here and abroad.

The doctrine of the unity of the body cannot be made a cover for evil.

• Since in view of this I am unable to regard you any longer as occupying the place, representatively, of the Lord's Table in this town I am not willing to see any brothers sent by the company, as such. Enquirers after the truth I will gladly see, and always.

  I regret having to again comment – but this cannot be ignored. Despite "representatively" there is little, if any difference, between this statement of Mr. Holding's previous view of the brethren in Colwyn Bay and the pretentious "notion that we are the assembly" which he earlier and rightly condemns. For the distinction between the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper, see Studies: the Lord's Supper and the Service of God.  GAR

Mrs. Holding shares my view and withdraws accordingly,

F. G. Holding.

Looking at the ministry to-day, the interpretations of scripture are often extreme and wrong – in this country mostly by young people who are for every step dependent upon extreme brethren in England.

• Thus, on the whole, peace and joy amongst the brethren in Germany are lost.

• The present ministry is the point, whether right or wrong, and the enemy has robbed the brethren of confidence.

• Further, consciences of the brethren are disregarded, and only present ministry counts and has to be followed blindly and obediently.
  • This was said by Mr. A.T. in my home when speaking of conscience with gestures indicative of contempt.

For some time many of us, including myself, suffered in these circumstances.

• I was glad to take you round to all the meetings except the last during your visit last year, assuming generally that the Lord would use you to stir up many of us and give help.

• In the meantime we saw that really the Lord had come in, but in a way we had not expected, namely that we had to find through sufferings a more real link with Him.

It can no longer be accepted that 'the truth' is the same thing as 'present ministry', for it does not in many things agree with the scriptures, and

• it is evident from the fruit of the ministry today that it contains a mixture of truth and human religious ideas.

Where is the root of all these difficulties to-day, beloved brother? Whose is the responsibility?

• Is it not in the leader who has given out this line of ministry?

• Also, have we not in a very serious time like this the obligation of checking our hearts to see what is really from the Lord or whether we ourselves are being misled?

Although you have ability to apply the scriptures, it seems to me that for some time now

• this has been done with a human rationalistic way of thinking, and quite regardless of the consequences. This is an admixture in yourself.

You can be sure that the present ministry with all its pressure, intolerance, harshness, disregard and ambitions – all of which are features of the flesh – will no longer be accepted.

There are some questions to which I should like an answer:

1. Is the eating matter a test of fellowship or not?

2. Why did you say in Wermelskirschen regarding G.S. that is was wrong to withdraw from him? Brethren in Wermelskirchen were convinced that they were right when they did so.

• Why did you form your own judgment on G. from other sources than Wermelskirchen brethren?

• Why did you interfere in this local matter at all after it was settled and G. again in fellowship?

• G. had repented and saw that he was wrong. Now after your declaration in Wermelskirchen he must think that the brethren were wrong and he was right.

• Why this confusion? We here are accustomed to accept an assembly decision even if we are sometimes not in full sympathy with it.

• Now it can be assumed that an assembly decision can be declared by one person as wrong and can depend on individual judgment, Matthew 18: 18, made without force, questionable, doubtful. Is that so?

Many more questions could be asked, but believe me that my letter has not been written as an excuse for wrong,

• as you said at the Central hall on 21/2/61, when you referred to Egypt being dealt with

• but said that the trouble was that persons would rather live in Egypt and get a little more out of it than stay in the assembly, etc.

We are going through a time of tribulation here, and I feel very heavy, because for many years we have been taught that we were in the assembly as a place of safety and that no other position gave that.

• So that up till now to leave this position or be cast out were unthinkable, but if there is no other way, it may mean leaving the boat.

How do you feel the losses? Does the question not come to you as to whether your father would have taken up the line which you have taken – or allowed others to take in your name – during the past years?

• I am very sorry that there seems to be no hope of your regaining the confidence of the brethren here,
  • and it looks as though you will lose all – first the bigger part and then the others, and you yourself may well be lost, too.

With regards to your views on alcohol and its influence I would say the following:

• If bound or not, if much is taken or little, if felt or not felt, it produces more or less an influence and if you do not realise that the Spirit of God is against that, then that would be another proof of violation of the conscience.

• It is good to know that Christ died for all of us and set aside the first man, so that we might serve a living and true God, etc. 1 Thessaloniana 1: 9-10.

I am persuaded that conscience and Divine principles must go together, and I am no longer prepared to deny this. Acts 17: 11.

I know you well enough to know that you will not feel hurt by this straight language, and I only wish I could convey better my thoughts to you.

• But I assure you I write sincerely and with true love in our Lort Jesus for you.

Yours affectionately in Him, Ernst Beck.

P.S. 4th.April, 1961.

Things in Germany and Switzerland developed quickly over Easter.

• In a number of meetings brethren have given up fellowship and declared not to be able to go longer with a system of unrighteousness.

• Remarkable to notice that this happened at the same time independant of each other, like an eruption to clear away a lot of ballast and burden.

• No doubt, the Lord is in this movement. Every heart of the rest of the brethren in Germany will now be brought to a decision.

Wermelskirchen who stood on the side of the brethren 1890 has been lost completely with the exception of G.S. whom you have encouraged by your abovementioned declaration when you were here.

• Wuppertal has been lost with the exception of a few.

• In a number of more meetings brethren have left fellowship inclusive of Zurich.

Brethren like myself in this country feel supported by the Lord in an extraordinary way and are in humbleness, deeply convinced that the Lord is with them after having left the boat and that with a new beginning confidence will come back amongst us.

• We wish nothing else than to pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. 2 Timothy 2: 22.

There was a meeting with Mr. A.B., Endbach, at Cologne on 31st. March, 1961.

• Mr. S.H. interfered often in a spirit of radicalism and hardness, for instance he said:

1. Alluding to Acts 2: 42 'the Apostles' teaching is now with the man of God'.

2. 'What the man of God says is authoritative and binding'.

3. 'Who does not hear what the man of God says despises the assembly and the Lord will deal with him'.

4. 'Despising the assembly is also not to accept the eating teaching".

Does not this make the position clear that we have got – become sect – a sect?

• Brethren who love the Lord do not give undue authority to one person in the assembly
  • but feel responsible and obliged to accept no longer wrong teaching before young people are further misled and spoiled.

This is clearly sectarian ground, plain to the simplest believer, from which I separated myself over 50 years ago.

• It is, moreover, pure popery, more serious than Rome, for it proceeds from those who have professed so loudly that they are walking in the light of the Assembly.

• In essence it is a practical denial of the headship of Christ – from Whom all true ministry comes –

• and of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit – Who acts through whom He wills – of the truth of the body of Christ,

• and of the authority of Scripture.

In saying this I am not attacking either the minister or his ministry.

• I confine myself here to the happenings last Tuesday, when a local meeting of assembly character, called to consider serious charges against four local brothers, was broken up – I can use no other words – by those from other localities.

• Indeed there is evidence that the affair was planned beforehand, even to the preparation of a list of names of all the local brethren which was produced during the inquisition and the names were ticked, or crossed according to whether or not they assented to the test mentioned above.

• This makes a travesty of assembly procedure, and ignores the presence of the Holy Spirit and the rights of Christ over His Assembly. The facts speak for themselves.

As for the test if it were even an apostle himself I would still say with Paul "Is the Christ divided? has Paul been crucified for you? or have ye been baptised unto the name of Paul?", 1 Cor. 1: 13.

I am not influenced in the least by the behaviour of those who forced these things, deplorable though it was, nor by the course of the meeting, terrible as it was.

• I take my stand – and my wife also – by the truth and by the principles in which I have walked all my life in separation from iniquity, and for which so many have suffered.

• I follow no man, I join no party. I desire to walk in humility and dependence upon Christ, thankful to have those in this town with whom I can walk, as those calling upon the Lord out of a pure heart.

I commend you to the mercy of God, May the eyes of some, at least, be opened to see the true nature of this into which you have fallen.

Farewell, B. G. Hardingham.

The brethren who are separating themselves from what is clearly felt wrong in the present teaching of yours, seek to go on humbly and dependent on the Lord and feel, in a most definite way, His support.

• It is very sad indeed, that things are forced as they are, and very doubtful matters pressed amongst the brethren in many places.

• Besides, there are matters such as the not-eating doctrine, that GRC's ministry is satanic – who would venture to support that before the Lord? – that —— is the leader universally, and so on down the long list of well-known rules.

Does it not come home to you, your own immense responsibility in the present situation?

• Does it not fill your soul and heart with trembling and fear when you see that your ministry breaks up things as it does?

• You may say it is the test of the Word of God. But is it really?

• Is it not clear for the simplest believer that the above mentioned points and others pressed – for instance what is said as to alcohol – are very far away from the facts and the spirit of the Word.

Not only have many now got free from all these wrong matters.

• We know well that so many brethren still within are greatly exercised as to these matters, and earnestly look to the Lord for adjustments.

• You may say that all those brethren who have left the sorrowful position you are in, are unclean, are evil.

• After all, what counts is: does the Lord say so? 'He knows those that are His'.

I assure you, dear brother, we do earnestly seek to go on separated to the Name of the Lord.

• We do not refuse your doctrines as an excuse for doing what is not right. We do not want to mix with unclean persons.

• But we insist on the liberty God in His Word gives to us; we believe that under certain circumstances He can be glorified by our contact with men, even men in the world.

• The simple teaching in 1 Corinthians 10 does help much in that regard.

I am not going further with the details. You are certainly aware how even many brethren of moral weight and spiritual experience through long history with God, are very much concerned as to matters.

• We do see now that homes are broken, that precious links of fellowship which have lasted for many years have been broken.

• We see, under the protection of present ministry, how even hardness and cruelty are given room for. What will the result of all this be?

• Do you really think that the Lord supports what we have seen in many of these cases, when brothers and sisters have been driven out of fellowship?

I felt for long, that I could not leave the position, that what was amongst the brethren was right as to the position. But my conscience was not at rest.

• And many, like myself, have gone through these immense conflicts. And many, like myself, do thank God for the way He showed us, when we at last were convinced as to the unrighteousness of things amongst you –
  • a way opened out for us – to our Lord Jesus outside the camp.

• As one man and his thoughts to a large degree has become the test and foundation for fellowship, it is no other alternative for me than this move.

In this movement one is reminded of the man in John 9, as cast out, he found, in such a position, the Lord Himself, the Son of God.

• And so we desire to move on listening to the voice of the True Leader, John 10, as those who are known by Him, and as those who are known of God.

• In spite of all the strong words you and others have used as to those who have left your system of teaching, I assure you, beloved brother, that there is a way out, there is a path to walk in – in which heart and soul find perfect rest with Jesus our Lord.

I do indeed hope that you will take to heart what is happening around, and not go on as if all is well and right.

• The conflicts in former days amongst us, as far as I can judge, have been of another character altogether than the present.

• May it not be said of servants in our day, as it was said of one of old, "He stole the people's heart" ?

• In the glorious position we have part in with the Lord we only desire Him before us, we only desire to hear Him. Matthew 17.

I have written a simple letter to you, hoping that it will express to you some of the exercises in the hearts of many and hoping it will have in all its simplicity a little word to you in the present time.

With warm love in Christ,

Your affectionate brother in Him, Oivind N. Evenson.

1. Brethren were asked whether they would accept the fact that the Exclusive Brethren were the Assembly, and that every other Christian outside the fellowship was unclean and a vessel to dishonour.
   • They were also told there was no question about anything JTJr said, and there was no need to test what he said by Scripture, since he was authoritative in every way.

   • Did they accept universal leadership as seen in JTJr?

   • Were they prepared to say that JTJr had never made a mistake?

   • Did they accept the ministry as to not eating with those not in fellowship, eating being on the same level as the Lords' Supper?

   • Did they acknowledge that a sinless walk is not only possible, but that there were some among the brethren who were sinless and had never done anything wrong since they received the Holy Spirit? It was thought that JTJr belonged to that category.

I will not take up your time in showing from Scripture and former ministry, how dreadful it is, that the answer to these questions should have become the test of fellowship,

• What is so misleading in all this is that so much that is right and good is being said in current ministry, that one is apt to overlook the 'dead flies' at first; but now I see clearly!

I am writing to our local meeting in Hamburg to ask them to send two brothers to see us as soon as possible,

• so that we can tell them we must withdraw from this new system that is being headed by JTJr and to explain to them the reason for our decision.

• Miss Weyrich is also prepared to withdraw, as seeing how different the system is becoming from the fellowship we came out to – having left sectarian ground years ago.

In your previous letter you reminded me of Song of Solomon 1: 7, and said the Lord was still with His flock and with those of His companions –

• that is just it, Mr. Harrington, His companions – true Christians, but not having the light of the assembly as brethren hold it – are indiscriminately being all called vessels to dishonour!

Of those who withdraw it is being said that they want the world, its advantages, or perhaps just an easier path.

• Of many it is said that they have wrong thoughts as to the Person of Christ.

• As to myself, I do assure you I will have nothing to do with the world or with any open or loose principles, and as to an easier path – I lose the love of many dear friends among the brethren … and my translation work which I held so dear.

• As to the Person of our blessed Lord, it is because of acknowledging His supremacy in all things that I dare not give the man —— such a place in the Assembly as stated above.

There is much I would like to say to entreat you to review these matters prayerfully, right from the beginning of the turning point a couple of years ago, but I have little hope of your listening to such as I.

• So I suppose this is good-bye till we all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and all things will at last be clear to all.

I thank you and your dear wife and her mother once more for your hospitality and tender care for me in the past. There seems no more to be said.

There is a beautiful word somewhere – I think in dear PL's ministry – 'broken-hearted assembly men' – among those out there are many such!

Yours in much sorrow of heart at the necessity to part from you and your dear household.

T. Stenbock.